Archive for the ‘International Concerns’ Category
The last several presidents have acted to instigate “police actions” without the approval of Congress, contrary to the Constitution, however none of them have insisted on the “approval” of the U.N. or NATO to do so, consequently, the article hereafter is even more serious than that addressed by Mr. Zahn. Here’s another example of Barack Obama parroting his mentor George Soros on the importance of an International Authority, on the United States of America asking the permission of the U.N. of NATO before acting. This is akin to Obama and Hilary Clinton involving the U.N. in gun ownership in America, it’s akin to Obama apologizing to the world for the actions of the U.S., akin to him bowing to the King of Saudi. This is very dangerous ground. Giving the U.N. and NATO even the impression that the United States will go to them for “approval” is giving up the sanctity, the autonomy, of the country. We should never, never, never let that camel get his nose under the edge of the tent. I, for one, think Congress and only Congress should have war powers, but then, I’m a Constitutionalist.
OBAMA IMPEACHMENT BILL NOW IN CONGRESS
Declares president’s use of military without approval ‘high crime, misdemeanor’
Published: 24 hours ago
by DREW ZAHN
Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today’s professional journal for church
Let the president be duly warned.
Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.
In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”
In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”
“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”
Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.
Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.
“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
The exchange itself can be seen below, click on Sessions/Panetta for the video:
The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
There can only be one reason for Barack Hussein Obama blocking the Canadian pipeline across America, and that’s the fact his many Muslim friends don’t want America to have independence from Middle Eastern oil. It’s another bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, and the whole Muslim world. And, very obviously, Hussein doesn’t want America to be free of dependence upon his Muslim friends. At one time I thought Americans smart enough to see right through this kind of traitorous act, but I’m beginning to doubt American intelligence. Again, I say, don’t believe what he says, believe what Barack Hussein Obama does. Who the hell are you people? Those of you who get it, please pass this on. http://fromthepeapatch.com
For Arabic push one, then bend over and kiss your ass goodbye, America.
As our courts across the land entertain allowing Shiria law into the fabric of America, this is what we can look forward to…and much, much worse. Right now pick up the phone and call the Michigan Department of Human Services and you will hear, “For Arabic Push 3.” The downfall of California began with multi-lingual classrooms and bi-lingual ballots. It’s time that America declared “we speak English in America.”
To verify the above, if you don’t want to call, see:
“A Black Day for Austria”
by Soeren Kern
December 26, 2011 at 5:00 am
An Austrian appellate court has upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after giving a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam.
The December 20 ruling shows that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.
Although the case has major implications for freedom of speech in Austria, as well as in Europe as a whole, it has received virtually no press coverage in the American mainstream media.
Sabaditsch-Wolff’s Kafkaesque legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the Freedom Education Institute, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party.
A glossy socialist weekly magazine, NEWS — all in capital letters — planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the first two lectures. Lawyers for the leftwing publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor’s office as evidence of hate speech against Islam, according to Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB). Formal charges against Sabaditsch-Wolff were filed in September 2010; and her bench trial, presided on by one multicultural judge and no jury, began November 23, 2010.
On the first day of the trial, however, it quickly became clear that the case against Sabaditsch-Wolff was not as air-tight as prosecutors had made it out to be. The judge in the case, Bettina Neubauer, pointed out, for example, that only 30 minutes of the first seminar had actually been recorded.
Neubauer also noted that some of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were offhand comments made during breaks and not a formal part of the seminar. Moreover, only a few people heard these comments, not 30 or more — the criterion under Austrian law for a statement being “public.” In any event, Sabaditsch-Wolff says her comments were not made in a public forum because the seminars were held for a select group of people who had registered beforehand.
More importantly, many of the statements attributed to Sabaditsch-Wolff were actually quotes she made directly from the Koran and other Islamic religious texts. Fearing that the show trial would end in a mistrial, the judge abruptly suspended hearings until January 18, 2011, ostensibly to give him time to review the tape recordings, but also to give the prosecution more time to shore up its case.
On January 18, after realizing that the original charge would not hold up, the judge — not the prosecutor — informed Sabaditsch-Wolff that in addition to the initial charge of hate speech, she was now being charged with “denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group.” Sabaditsch-Wolff’s lawyer immediately demanded that the trial be postponed so that the defense could prepare a new strategy.
When the trial resumed on February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was exonerated of the first charge of “incitement” because the court found that here statements were not made in a “provocative” manner.
But Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of the second charge against her, namely “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion,” according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code.
The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff’s actual words were “Mohammed had a thing for little girls.”)
The judge rationalized that Mohammed’s sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.
The judge ordered Sabaditsch-Wolff to pay a fine of €480 ($625) or an alternative sentence of 60 days in prison. Moreover, she was required to pay the costs of the trial. Although at first glance the fine may appear trivial — the fine was reduced to 120 “day rates” of €4 each because Sabaditsch-Wolff is a housewife with no income — the actual fine would have been far higher if she had had income.
Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the conviction to the Provincial Appellate Court (Oberlandesgericht Wien) in Vienna, but that appeal was rejected on December 20. The court says she will go to prison if the fine is not paid within the next six months. She says she will take the case to the Strasbourg-based European Court for Human Rights.
After the trial, Sabaditsch-Wolff said her conviction represented “a black day for Austria.” The Vienna Federation of Academics (Wiener Akademikerbund) said the ruling represented “politically and sentimentally motivated justice” and marked “the end of freedom of expression in Austria.”
Sabaditsch-Wolff is not the only Austrian to run afoul of the country’s anti-free speech laws. In January 2009, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.
The Taliban – Biden’s Bosom Buddies!
I wonder what the ladies who follow the Pea Patch, in fact every woman in America, think about this comment from our administration: “Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical,” US Vice-President Joe Biden said in an interview to the Newsweek magazine.
Presuming the best, giving the president and vice president the benefit of the doubt, I can only conclude that he meant, “Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy alone, but is the enemy of the entire civilized world. The enemy of all freedom loving, tolerant, peace loving people.” Because I find it hard to believe that our administration thinks us so stupid to believe such an inane statement was made, was believed, by Vice President Joe Biden. Then again, maybe the stupidity is on the other side of that statement?
This administration has a memory about as long at the Taliban’s list of women they respect and admire. Let’s see, young women killed because they had the audacity of trying to go to school? Young women stoned to death because they disobeyed their husband’s dictates? Thousand year old, irreplaceable religious artifacts destroyed because they “offended” Taliban sensitivities? Thousands of U.S. military killed, and more thousands maimed? A group who’s financed by the production and smuggling of the majority of the world’s heroin, most of which finds it’s way to the U.S.? And on and on and on….
I wonder just who is our enemy if the Taliban is not? I wonder who is the enemy of any civilized man or woman if the Taliban is not?
I’ve long believed Joe Biden was born at night, and only now learned it was last night. At least if he truly believes what he said.
And most of all, I wonder what is the motivation of an administration, a president and vice president of the United States of America who would suggest that the heinous crimes of the Taliban do not make them the enemy of any peace loving, freedom loving, free choice-of-religion loving, tolerant people…and certainly the enemy of each and every American who believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the God given right of all people, men and women everywhere, to live in freedom.
It seems all American’s believe in those basic principles, except two who unfortunately occupy the office of president and vice president. I, for one, think our president and vice president should have an inkling of who, and where, our enemies are.
“During war, the laws are silent.”
– Quintus Tullius Cicero
(c.102-43 B.C.), Roman general; brother of Cicero the orator
Even before the birth of Christ, men understood that in the time of war it’s necessary to take unusual steps to protect us. Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg is among those pushing for a bill to allow Homeland Security to bring vehicles into our wilderness areas. At a time when four men can backpack a dirty bomb into the country…a bomb that could wipe out L. A. country, it’s time for unusual measures. Liberals in the guise of sportsmen and environmentalists are all over the T.V. proclaiming it’s an invasion of our rights…well, our right to live, and not die a horrid death from radioactivity or reisen poison, is more important than keeping vehicles out of our public lands. PROTECT OUR BORDERS. It’s more important than a few jeep tracks in the sand.